Delhi Court September 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.M.L. Garg Vs. Lloyd Insulations (India) Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ614
P.N. Nag, J.(1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27th May, 1992, of Shri G.SJugti, Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby the application of the petitioner Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reinstatement as Company Secretary has been dismissed. (2) The brief facts are that the appellant was discharged from services by respondent No.1 vide Resolution dated 26th July, 1991. According to him the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 26th July, 1991, which purports to have discharged the petitioner from service is contrary to law and without jurisdiction and that the meeting was not convened according to the law and that the Board of Directors were not even served. thereforee, the said Resolution dated 26th July, 1991, according to him is a nullity in the eyes of law. According to the appellant/ plaintiff another resolution dated 24th August, 1991 has been passed by Board of Directors nullifying the earlier resolution...
Raj Kumari Walia Vs. P.N. Premanandan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1993(25)DRJ17; 1992RLR531
Santosh Duggal, J.(1) This is landlady's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th November 1990, whereby respondent/tenant's appeal was allowed. The controversy now falls in a very narrow compass, but before that facts are required to be -noticed. (2) The petitioner let-out premises bearing No. 61-A, Dda Flats, Prashad Nagar, New Delhi to the respondents for limited period of three years with effect from 25th September 1982 after obtaining permission of the Rent Controller under section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act) on 24th September, 1982. The period of limited tenancy expired on 24th September 1985, and after waiting for the premises to be vacated, the landlady filed an execution application on the last day available to her, namely, on 24th September 1985, seeking vacant possession of the premises. (3) The record reveals that notice was ordered to be issued...
Kimti Lal Rahi Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT56; 1992(24)DRJ630
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This order shall dispose of above noted bunch of similar applications under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from taking any action deterimental to the interests of the plaintiffs in regard to industrial sheds which are in their possession and to stay the eviction proceedings initiated against them by defendant No.3 before the Estate Officer under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1971. Facts of all the cases being similar it would suffice if the facts of one of the cases namely, Suit No.2369 of 1988 are stated. (2) In the year 1973-74 the Government of India came out with a programme to create employment opportunities for educated unemployed. The Union of India called upon the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories to formulate and send their proposals. Accordingly, the State Governments and the Union Territories formulated their pro...
Chander Prakash Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 49(1993)DLT292; 1993(25)DRJ104
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Two Officers of the Indian Po,lice Service viz, Chander Prakash and Sewa Dass have filed these two writ petitions claiming similar reliefs viz., that the Notification dated 23rd February, 1987 constituting a Committee of Mr. Justice Dalip K.Kapur (retd.)and Km. Kusum Lata Mital be quashed and, further no action be taken by the respondents on any report or observations made by any of the members of the said Committee.(2) Briefly stated the facts are that Chander Prakash joined the Indian Police Service, and was allotted the Union Territory's cadre, in the year 1971 while Sewa Dass was appointed to this service in 1973. On 31st October, 1984 Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated by her security guards. Both the petitioners were, at that time, posted at Delhi. Chander Prakash was Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Delhi and Sewa Dass was serving as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East Delhi.(3) The aftermath of the dastardly act of murd...
Union of India Vs. Dayal Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT702
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) All these appeals have been filed by the Union of India. The challenge is not to the award of compensation but to the applicability of sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the LandAcquisilionAct,1894(for short the Act') as introduced in the Act by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short 'the Amending Act') which came into force on 24 September 1984 but the provisions afore said were nevertheless made applicable from 30 April 1982 when the bill of the Amending Acl was introduced in the Parliament. (2) In R.F.A. 154/89 notifications under sections 4,6 and 17 were all issued on 19 April 1979 and it was staled that possession was taken perhaps some time in May 1979. The record does not show as to on which date the possession was taken. The award by the Collector was made on 18 August 1980 and judgment by the Additional District Judge on reference made under section 18 of the Act was given on 29 October 1987. The learned Additional District Judge said that sinc...
Ram Saroop and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1992
Reported in: 48(1992)DLT600
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) These two appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') pertain to village Khizarabad in the Union territory of Delhi. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 3 June 1961 and declaration under section 6 on 27 October 1961. The award by the Land Acquisition Collector was made on 27 February 1962. He divided the land in two blocks and fixed market value of the land in Block A Dewan Ram Saroop deceased Lrs. & Others v. Union of India at Rs.4,000.00 per bigha and that in Block B at Rs.2,500.00 per bigha.(2) In fact there are two different awards. In Rfa 288/68 the award number is 1287 and the land measuring I bigha 2 biswas, but we are concerned with 4/5th of this land, i.e., 800 sq. yds. in this appeal. In Rfa 299/68 the award number is 1283 and it pertains to khasra No. 2/4/1 measuring 10 bids was and in appeal we are concerned with 4/5th of this, i.e., 400 sq.yds. of land.(3) The Collector awarded compensation at ...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Film Centre and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ215
S.C. Jain, J.(1) Maruti Udyog Limited, hereinafter called the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant on the allegation that in order to boost the image of the company the plaintiff decided for a video film with the title 'Excellence is its by line' mainly depicting its manufacturing operations, vehicles manufactured and the achievements made by it in the automobiles field to be screened for the benefit of the company's visitors and guests in its reception. The plaintiff invited quotations from the leading video film making units. Defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 vide letter dated 29.6.88 quoted Rs. 62,500.00 for the corporate film. The charges quoted were all inclusive like conceptualisation, script writing, shooting, editing, dubbing, commentary, music etc. A period of 45 days was indicated for completion of the order from the date of placement. By a subsequent letter dated 18.7.88 the defendant No.1 reduced the charges from Rs. 62,500....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vikram Shridhar Shriram
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR447(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there is a mistake apparent deserving to be rectified under section 254 of the Income-tax act, 1961 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the cost of bonus shares be determined separately for determining capital gains even though original shares, right share an bonus shares were sold together ?' 2. The respondent had originally purchased 701 shares at a cost of Rs. 26,247. The respondent was also allotted 1,691 bonus shares. These 2,392 shares were then sold at a price of Rs. 1,39,808. The question which had arisen was as to what was the capital gain derived by the assessed. The Tribunal placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]143ITR749(De...
People Co-operative Labour and Const. Society Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ARBLR412(Delhi); 48(1992)DLT654
Chaudhry, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement and for reference of the additional disputes to the arbitration for adjudication. It is alleged that the petitioner entered into a contract for the work of 'Formation of designed Section of Ghazipur Drain & Desalting of connate from R.D.O. to R.D. 6180M'. The work was awarded on 20-3-1982 and the date of starting the work was to be reckoned from the 7th day from the date of award, i.e., from 27-3-1982 as per terns of the agreement. In terms of the agreement the work was to be completed within 4 months, i.e., by 26-7-1982, but it was actually completed on 6-7-1982. According to the petitioner they performed the contract to the entire satisfaction of the department but at the time of making payment, the department did not make the payment as per the work executed by them. Disputes arose between the parties. The petitioner invoked the arbitratio...
Harbans Singh and Sons Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ527
D.K. Jain, J. (1) The work of 'manufacture and supply of machine made doors and window shutters' was awarded by the Delhi Development Authority, (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) to M/s. Harbans Singh & Sons (hereinafter referred to as the Contractors),on the basis of negotiated settlement specified in the agreement, entered into between the parties on 16 August 1984. (2) Under the said agreement the Contractors had to make supplies of the total value of Rs. 50 lakhs to the Delhi Development Authority f rom 24 May 1984 to 23 January 1985 at the agreed rates. The Office of the Chief Engineer of the Delhi Development Authority had to make allocations to its different divisions, against, which the-concerned Executive Engineers of the various divisions had to confirm the particular sizes and numbers of the shutters to meet the needs of the relevant housing schemes for which the allocation was made by the Chief Engineer. The Delhi Development Authority made in all nine numbers of. alloca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »